Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s works within the highway verge which Mr X says has reduced the width of his vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council carrying out work to the footway and grass verge near a tree which he says has resulted in the reduction of the width of his vehicle crossing. He wants the Council to continue the asphalt surface over an area incorporating a tree root which he says has damaged the pavement in the past.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council has carried out work to the verge and pavement outside his home which has affected the ramped kerbstones at each end of his vehicle crossing, effectively reducing the width of the crossing. He says incorporating a tree root within the grassed area has resulted in mud being carried onto his driveway when he accesses it.
6. The Council says that the access has not been reduced because the ramped kerbs which form part of the dropped kerb access are not intended to be driven over and Mr X still has the same access width to his driveway. It will not carry out further works which may affect the roots of a mature tree.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council is the highway authority and it has statutory powers to carry out works within the highway boundary which includes the footway and the grass verge. Mr X has a vehicle crossing which is a licence to drive over the footway without being prosecuted for a highway offence. The dropped kerbs and any other part of the crossing remain the property of the highway authority and he has no control over any highway infrastructure outside the boundary of his property, which in this case is the end of his driveway.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s works within the highway verge which Mr X says has reduced the width of his vehicle crossing. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman